Bennett, R. v

In assessing dangerousness for a sentence of detention for public protection, the court must decide whether there is a significant risk that the offender will cause serious harm through further specified offences. The assessment may properly take account of the circumstances of the offence, a pattern of prior offending, breaches of court orders, and relevant pre-sentence and psychological material.

A young offender's age and the predictive nature of the assessment do not prevent a finding of dangerousness where the available evidence demonstrates an ongoing and substantial risk to the public.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Sheffield to manslaughter, driving whilst disqualified, and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. He had driven while disqualified, uninsured, and after consuming alcohol and cannabis. His dangerous driving caused a collision in which his passenger suffered fatal injuries. There was also a delay in obtaining medical assistance while he sought to avoid the consequences of the collision.

The Recorder imposed detention in a young offender institution for public protection under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 226, with a minimum term of four and a half years. The appellant contended that the Recorder should instead have imposed a determinate sentence. The central issue was whether he posed the statutory significant risk of serious harm through further specified offences.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Recorder was entitled to impose detention for public protection under section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The appellant presented a significant risk within section 225(1)(b).

2. The statutory assessment required consideration of the available information. Under section 229(2)(a), the Recorder had to take account of the nature and circumstances of the offending. He was also entitled to consider information under section 229(2)(b) and (c), including the appellant's previous behaviour and the professional reports before the court.

3. The offending disclosed more than an isolated lapse. The appellant knowingly drove while disqualified and uninsured, after drinking alcohol and using cannabis, at dangerously excessive speeds. After the collision, he placed his own interests ahead of urgently securing medical assistance for the seriously injured passenger. Those matters were material because prompt treatment might have given her a substantial prospect of survival.

4. The Recorder was also entitled to give weight to the appellant's motor-vehicle offending, repeated breaches of court orders, reckless attitude to others, drug and alcohol misuse, and the risk assessments in the pre-sentence and psychological material. His age and the necessarily predictive character of the exercise did not undermine the conclusion that there was a significant future risk of serious harm.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appellant's challenge to detention for public protection.

• Crown Court at Sheffield: the Recorder sentenced the appellant to detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, with a minimum term of four and a half years.